"I'm ready to lose control, but they're not"
-
@remus said:
Current model of Nibiru debunked?, page 1
Current model of Nibiru debunked?, page 1
AboveTopSecret.com (www.abovetopsecret.com)
Yep. Once you see a big header 'debunked?' you think - phew.. job done. They say about a current model.
As a matter of fact the whole story regarding 10th planet doesn't have to be correct. Especially mixed with Aliens make it even more 'hoaxy'. 'The Brown Dwarf' should be visible to a naked eye in 2011 so it will eventually debunk itself. There is an interesting motive of 'feathered sun' in Egyptian culture and some other clues in Sumerian. Of course the Internet is full of theories and weird ideas.
What pushed me to look for clues was that the 9/11 was in my opinion a self inflicted wound.
I have started asking myself what has forced the government of USA to make such a terrible move. The answer is somewhere and it doesn't have to be a 'shortage' of oil. -
@unknownuser said:
Yep. Once you see a big header 'debunked?' you think - phew.. job done.
No, i think "why did i waste my time thinking about this in the first place."
Then I start thinking about real problems instead of imagined ones.
-
@unknownuser said:
9/11 was in my opinion a self inflicted wound.
Do you mean that the US government planned and executed the 9/11 assaults? If so, how exactly did you arrive at this conclusion?
-
This is not a topic of the thread Stinkie. It is regarding the Bilderberg and their motives.
To reply you in short the collapse of both towers and neighbour building (no.7 as far as I remember) did look like perfect demolition scenario. The towers were designed to withstand an impact and they did. There were no debris of an airliner in a vicinity of the Pentagon, just a hole in a wall. (full stop)
-
Tomasz, I am going to reply anyway.
Every time I ask you to come up with decent arguments, you weasel yourself out of it. Every single time! Either that, or you just paraphrase your initial statement.
This is very, very tiresome. And as I explained to you before, it's just IMPOLITE.
I am starting to grow increasingly tired of that "either you get it, or you're blind and to be pitied" undercurrent of both your and Coen's posts. How hard can it be to show your fellow forum members some respect by at least trying to come up with logical arguments, rather than expecting them make a leap of faith?
Coen, Tomasz: page 59 of Robert Hughes' "Culture of Complaint". READ IT.
-
It is fine Stinkie if you find that both towers have had a 'terrible structural mistake'. I don't know what is your background and if you have a knowledge about how structure works.
I won't support blindness just in the name of being kind.
We laugh here in Europe at the American political correctness. You have pushed it so far that it is really ridicule.
-
I cannot help but notice you haven't answered my question - again. Can't say that was unexpected.
@unknownuser said:
It is fine Stinkie if you find that both towers have had a 'terrible structural mistake'.
This is ... superb. Rather than coming up with arguments yourself, you expect me to prove you wrong. And you top it off by subtly implying I may not be knowledgable enough to participate in this debate to begin with.
Now, Tomasz, it's true. I know nothing about structural engineering. Nada. When it comes to structural engineering, I am a complete dumbass.
But that's not even relevant. Why? For two reasons.
-
I don't need to know anything about structural engineering. I'm not the one making assumptions. The burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine. Get that?
-
It's not your views that irk me, Tomasz. It's your utter dédain for both logic and the rules of conversation. I needn't be knowledgeable about structural engineering to be able to point out the flaws in your 'reasoning'. Common sense will do just fine.
Oh ... what's political correctness got to do with this? Tell me, please. I can't wait to hear this.
And ... I'm an American now? Yee-haw!
-
-
@unknownuser said:
Rather than coming up with arguments yourself, you expect me to prove you wrong.
I do not expect it. I should have add that I simply find a 'structural failure' less probable. I have just expressed my opinion. I am not here to convince you.
If you are interested, please check findings of professor of physics - Steven Jones regarding Thermite, analysis of a 'free fall' of the building No.7, etc. My common sense tells me his allegations are valid. There are very few scientists that spotted that the official story has many weak points AND have a courage to tell about them.
It is you Stinkie who jumps from topic to topic. Now you ask me to reply on 'political correctness'...., please.
-
Even if this Jones fellow is right, and there was "controlled demolition" involved, how does that prove the involvement of the US government? I just GOT to keep asking: arguments, please.
@unknownuser said:
I have just expressed my opinion. I am not here to convince you.
Right. It doesn't matter, Tomasz, whether you want to convince me or not, you still have to back up the claims you make. That's talking TO people, rather than AT them. Again, it's the polite thing to do.
@unknownuser said:
It is you Stinkie who jumps from topic to topic. Now you ask me to reply on 'political correctness'...., please.
You've lost me.
-
@unknownuser said:
Right. It doesn't matter, Tomasz, whether you want to convince me or not, you still have to back up the claims you make. That's talking TO people, rather than AT them. Again, it's the polite thing to do.
Now I got it. Finally. You are right.
It is not polite to ask people to invest their time, into developing their own conclusions, without explaining one's conduct of thinking. Apologies.
It will take some time to draw a bigger picture. I will be back with an explanation later. -
Excellent! Don't forget to provide rock solid proof of that 'no debris in the vicinity of the Pentagon' thing while you're at it.
-
Zeitgeist - 911 Section Only
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5435410551639504683 WATCH IT.About that Nibiru and 2012, heard it so much but still doesn't sound believeable, it's highly improbable that 2 solar systems would be so close and not have very frequent catastrophic events in both, and one star should be completely invisible and not be a black hole.
I may believe that some distant planet of our own solar system exists but i don't believe that it could cause extreme disasters to the Earth every few thousand years. Also no being can live on a planet so frozen and not be highly advanced technologically and very different from humans not just being a bit taller and having weird shaped humanoid heads. Also why would they endure the harsh environment of that far off planter when if they really a higly advanced race they could just conquer the Earth or if they were lets say peaceful could have tried to terraform or "anunakiform" Mars. -
@unknownuser said:
Excellent! Don't forget to provide rock solid proof of that 'no debris in the vicinity of the Pentagon' thing while you're at it.
@unknownuser said:
no debris of an airliner
Will do this, but I will concentrate on the topic of the thread and won't draw much attention to 911.
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
Excellent! Don't forget to provide rock solid proof of that 'no debris in the vicinity of the Pentagon' thing while you're at it.
@unknownuser said:
no debris of an airliner
Will do this, but I will concentrate on the topic of the thread and won't draw much attention to 911.
Please, concentrate on backing the claims you made. After all, those are what this little 'debate in the debate' are about.
Edit: just saw that Marian posted a link to that Zeitgeist flick. Which reminded of a question I wanted to ask earlier. How does the average conspiracy theorist distinguish a trustworthy source from a non-trustworthy one?
Edit two: from the Wiki on Peter Joseph, the director of Zeitgeist:
"Part II, entitled "All the World's a Stage," uses integral footage of several 9/11 conspiracy theory films like Loose Change to portray the September 11 attacks as either orchestrated or allowed to happen by elements within the United States government in order to generate mass fear, initiate and justify the War on Terror, provide a pretext for the curtailment of civil liberties, and produce economic gain. These claims include that the U.S. government had advance knowledge about the attacks, the response of the military deliberately let the planes reach their targets, and the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 underwent a controlled demolition. The film claims that six of the named hijackers are still alive, that Hani Hanjour could not have flown Flight 77 into the Pentagon, that no substantial plane wreckage was found at two of the three crash sites, that the Bush administration covered up the truth in the 9/11 Commission Report, and that the mainstream media have failed to ask important questions about the official account.
However, in a March 17, 2009 article the New York Times after noting that the first Zeitgeist film "may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 11 were an 'inside job' perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population," goes on to say that this is a point of view that Mr. Joseph said he has recently "moved away from."Where's that "I just pissed myself with laughter" smiley?
-
just to help a bit to Tomasz and try to convince you remus about the story not yet resolved about the 9/11 start of the actual changes in the earth we live in.
You ask :
###...how does that prove the involvement of the US government?...###
it proves it since the same time that it does not prove it.
I mean, if you have 645 architects and engineers asking for a test because they discuss the said that the towers dropped because and JUST BECAUSE of the fire, well, it is not that clear then.
Why they do not take even a minute to to re_think their satatements were done in too much hurry.eh?hup, it was for stinkie,
sorry remus -
Juan, you're a really nice bloke, but I haven't got the faintest of ideas what you're talking about.
-
look here stinkie, http://www.ae911truth.org/
-
@unknownuser said:
However, in a March 17, 2009 article the New York Times
I am surprised that you base your conclusions on what the author of the Zeitgeist told to NYT.
You have asked about evidence showing no debris of an airliner. Please check this site which seems to be reasonably objective. It is a page with pictures of the building after impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/index.html
Especially interesting are the photographs showing the facade before the collapse.
For me it is very evident that the building was hit by something smaller than an airliner and definitely has no passengers on board. There is no sign of two giant engines, wings whose span is very large in comparison to the width of the building affected.There is no sight of big amount of debris you would expect if it would be an aeroplane carrying passengers. The plane was not intercepted, but there was a plenty of time.
As I have written it is my opinion.
On the site you will find also an analysis of almost free-fall speed of collapsing building No.7.I recommend watching 'In Plane Site' and 'Loose change' on Google Video\Youtube. If you will find the info on the website intriguing. If it doesn't light a new light in your head do not bother.
Now bigger picture...
The films mentioned above, many of other short movies and websites convinced me that US officials let someone demolish all three buildings and were not saying true in case of the Pentagon. They have allowed to happen. There was one thing that was distracting me and forcing me to reject this terrible scenario.
I could not believe that they would do such a thing 'to extend the Empire' or to prepare 'New Order'. I knew that, if all this could be true, there must be something WAY more scary. Something that forced them to make such a decision. I thought that it was a shortage of oil, that without it America would collapse very fast. This motive wasn't good enough for me. Then what? I have given up my searches and forgotten about the topic.
Recently I have decided to explore more what Native American say about they spirituality. I am genuinely interested in learning more about their respect for 'Mother Earth', spiritual abilities and so on. In my search I have found a description of a 'Great Vision' experienced by the Red Elk. I have included the link to his story in my first post.
The vision relates to the future of the Northern America. He experienced it back in 1974. What he saw in it was so terrible that he could not stand it. Draught, war, earthquakes, volcano eruptions. Reshaping of the continent in general, great natural disaster. He mentions also 'chip implants' to humans that convert them to slaves.
A man of such a loving heart wouldn't made it up to scare people. He is genuinely concerned about future of the States and the humanity in general. He talks about 'Our Grandfather' and the necessity of Love in our societies. He encourages people not to take what he says as granted, but to verify it.
Those who believe that we are a spiritual beings can be greatly touched by his simple way of thinking.
That is all folks.
-
@unknownuser said:
I am surprised that you base your conclusions on what the author of the Zeitgeist told to NYT.
Point me to those conclusions, Tomasz. Where are they? What are they?
@unknownuser said:
You have asked about evidence showing no debris of an airliner.
To be precise, I asked for rock solid proof. A link to a site that seems reasonably objective - are you pulling my leg? When's the meaning of the concept 'proof' going to sink in?
-
Man! You guys don't know anything, I'm the guy behind the 911 attacks, Osama is my cousin 10 times removed and I used Microsoft Flight Simulator and a GPS link with the planes to pilot them. Ironically the goal was just to fly by the targets, but windows 98 gave an error and rebooted everything, nothing worked correctly after that.
So in a way Bill Gates is guilty of 911.
Advertisement